Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-06-2018, 06:37 PM   #11  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
That was "tongue in cheek" and I wouldn't castigate that pilot for not alerting the FAA as he might not even be aware of the violations and if he was might be reluctant due to possible retaliation in that job market.
You're really not getting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
You say the operator had a long history of illegal charters. Was the FAA powerless to stop that or was he penalized but the the fines were not onerous?
The FAA would have to be aware that the illegal charters were happening, you see. That's really the point.

People tend to fly below the radar until they do something that garners attention. Something like, say, crashing a Falcon 50 without brakes with two unqualified pilots at the controls on an illegal charter...
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 01:40 PM   #12  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
FSDOs are the red headed stepchild of the FAA when it comes to 135/ corporate operators. I couldn’t meet my POI (91 large cabin) for months at a time. They’re staffed with hard pressed individuals who frequently have little or no GA experience. I’m not sure which was worst, ex-airline or ex-mil POIs. I battled over LOAs where the FSDO had little idea of current equippage or capabilities. One told me not to worry about a RVSM letter being delayed for weeks because bizjets fly in the US and ATC can clear thru RVSM to F430. Excuse me, my plane has a trip to India next week, LOA, please.

GF
The POI at my old shop endorsed illegal rolling rest because "that's the way it's always been done here." No hard days off, rest not known in advance, and a 24/7 on-call status to the company making all rest not valid (as it involved an obligation to the company at all times). Granted, the shop was the dirtbag operator but doing so with the POI's blessing is still a major issue.

Seriously hope to see more stringent oversight of 135 operators in the future. Even though this flight may have been operated under Part 91 (still unsure on this), I have no reason to believe the company was not willing to send the same illegal crew on a 135 charter.
skruts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 02:35 PM   #13  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skruts View Post
Even though this flight may have been operated under Part 91 (still unsure on this), I have no reason to believe the company was not willing to send the same illegal crew on a 135 charter.
This "crew" wasn't a crew, and wasn't able to operate under 135, because neither one was legal to do so. There was no possibility of operating under the certificate, because to do so would have been a violation. The "captain" had no type rating and wasn't qualified to act as PIC under Part 91 or 135. The "first officer" had no type rating and no instrument rating, and was only a private pilot (with those privileges granted on the basis of his Canadian license). Regardless of the operating rule, the flight was illegal.

It was conducted as as a revenue charter, off the books, like many of the flights. The "first officer," and owner/operator of the certificate, had been making illegal charter flights in other aircraft such as the King Air for a long time, and involving others in taking charter flights off the books, too.

It was an illegal 135 flight. Not done under the certificate because nobody was qualified (neither was the aircraft airworthy), yet none the less a charter. The company routinely did that off the books with pilots who had no 135 training and no 135 certificate, but were willing to take flights.

It's ironic that the owner/operator was killed on this particular flight that crashed.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 06:13 PM   #14  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 3,450
Default

Ironic or Instant Karma?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 09:30 PM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post

The FAA would have to be aware that the illegal charters were happening, you see. That's really the point.
Well, not just "aware of", but have "evidence of" that would stand up in court. That can be a pretty tall order at times. Sure, one may know of or have a pretty good idea of certain things going on, but bound by the legal field and rules, you have to "drop and forget" what you can't prove. Anything else is an over-reach and staying up at night over it doesn't do any good.

In any case, this is getting plenty of visibility outside of internal FAA. Depends on what newsletters and services you subscribe to.
JamesNoBrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 11:39 PM   #16  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Ironic or Instant Karma?

GF
A bit of both, it seems.

Far better that karma might return to the bearer, rather than dragging passengers into the crash, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
Well, not just "aware of", but have "evidence of" that would stand up in court. That can be a pretty tall order at times. Sure, one may know of or have a pretty good idea of certain things going on, but bound by the legal field and rules, you have to "drop and forget" what you can't prove. Anything else is an over-reach and staying up at night over it doesn't do any good.
Aaah...no. This has been occurring with this operator for years, with multiple pilots. Very simple observation, surveillance, would have garnered ample data.

The FAA has a long history of taking action without a leg to stand on, so lack of "evidence" has never stopped the Administrator's minions before. Evidence only comes into play in the appeal process, after the action has already begun. It is, after all, the airman's first opportunity to defend. It's the nature of administrative law.

In this case, the airman had long operated outside the certificate. Again, these events do not happen in a vacuum, and this certainly wasn't the first time the operator had elected to work off the reservation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
In any case, this is getting plenty of visibility outside of internal FAA. Depends on what newsletters and services you subscribe to.
I don't subscribe to any.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 04:00 AM   #17  
All is fine at .79
 
TiredSoul's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 985
Default

Quote:
The FAA has a long history of taking action without a leg to stand on, so lack of "evidence" has never stopped the Administrator's minions before. Evidence only comes into play in the appeal process, after the action has already begun. It is, after all, the airman's first opportunity to defend. It's the nature of administrative law.
God forbid you omit something on your medical from 30 years ago yet Capt Fearless over here is flying passagiers wearing a pilots uniform in a C206 and hes not on anybodies 135 certificate.

Sorry JnB, please dont mention FAA and the need for evidence in the same sentence.
TiredSoul is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 06:14 AM   #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pokey9554's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Cessna 150
Posts: 626
Default

But but but, they were Argus and Wyvern.
pokey9554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 07:05 AM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: Captain
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokey9554 View Post
But but but, they were Argus and Wyvern.
actually I think they just cut and pasted the logos onto their site and had no such endorsements
BarrySeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 11:05 AM   #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Holiday Inn, King Non-Smoking
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarrySeal View Post
actually I think they just cut and pasted the logos onto their site and had no such endorsements
Or they just paid for them like everyone else does.


Oh, I'm sorry. Did I let a cat out of the bag?
Captain Slow is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Planet Nine Falcon 7X Charter out of VNY David Puddy Part 135 2 07-19-2018 08:50 AM
Falcon Air F/O SCAB identified !!! A320Flyer Major 76 01-16-2014 02:40 AM
Falcon Air Express is hiring Lightwinds Hiring News 3 12-02-2012 05:13 PM
Falcon 10 BANYO4 Corporate 8 02-25-2010 05:38 PM
May I Fly Your Falcon 900?!?! (PLEASE!?) CaptainTeezy Corporate 24 12-22-2008 01:20 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:18 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright 2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1